While I find myself enjoying formal debates (for nostalgic purposes), I agree with Dave that a discussion is more thought provoking and ultimately will go further on this topic.

To begin, let me identify myself when I use the term "theist". I grew up in a very strict religious household which I ran away from my senior year in high school. I identified myself as an atheist up until my sophomore year of college, when I read the Bible in its entirety following the death of my best friend. While I would argue that my belief in God and the Bible can be supported intellectually, scientifically, historically, and philosophically, I would concede that my "born-again" conversion was wholeheartedly an emotional one.

Notice I said scientifically. I love science. Even though I am a philosophy major, it was the scientific arguments for a transcendant being (or lack thereof) that got me interested in the theism vs. atheism debate. I would argue that the beauty of my specific belief (Christianity) is that our worldview is not defined by a specific theory of how life began. For the atheist, it's evolution or nothing. If Darwinian Evolution is debunked, then the atheist has precious little to lean on without invoking a designer. As a Christian, I would say that I'm agnostic on a lot of parts of macroevolution. There are a lot of questions that I have regarding the theory that seem to be unanswered. With that said, accepting the theory as true in its entirety would not affect my faith in the Bible in any way, shape, or form.

I've often said that the belief in a young Earth is about as scientifically literate as saying the distance between Texas and California is 6 inches. Francis Collins was a leader on the Human Genome Project and is on the National Institutes of Health. Alister McGrath is a molecular biophysicist who teaches at Oxford University. C.S. Lewis, is well, C.S. Lewis. What do all of these brilliant minds have in common? Not only are/were they all evengelical Christians, but all accepted the theory of evolution as true. It certainly does not contradict the Old Testament when read figuratively.

So with all of that said, now you have a basic background on my faith. What say you? Did you grow up in a household that was anti-theistic? At what age did you begin to question the belief in a higher power? And perhaps the most important question I could ask you throughout all of this, what evidence would it take for you to accept a theistic worldview?

Here's a very very short and non-scientific friendly bit on abiogenesis.

It is now widely agreed that at the origin of life there was not the current DNA/(RNA)/protein system for gene information on one hand and catalysis, regulation, and structural function on the other. It would beg the question, what came first, protein or DNA? Protein catalysis without gene information, which allows it to be maintained and propagated, is not sufficient in the long term, and DNA gene information without catalysis, necessary for the function of life, would be useless as well.

Instead, it is assumed that RNA acted as a precursor of both protein and DNA, in the sense that it can serve both as catalyst (like protein enzymes) and as carrier of genetic information. Even in the modern cell ribozymes (catalytic RNAs) still play a vital, albeit limited, role. In the ribosome, the synthesis of the peptide chains of proteins from RNA code is accomplished by ribozymes. They also catalyze splicing of RNA.

The hypothesis that a so-called RNA World was involved in the early evolutionary stages of life is now an almost universally held view (Joyce 2002, Orgel 2004, The RNA World 2006). Could this RNA World have stood at the ultimate origin of life? This is currently still an open question. The RNA system may be too complex to have arisen without synthesis by a genetic precursor or prior enzyme-less metabolism (options discussed below). Yet while there are still substantial problems, there are now good leads for simple, spontaneous processes on the early Earth for both the synthesis of nucleotides and their concatenation to oligonucleotides.

Well of course DNA is not an amino acid. But DNA gets its right-handedness from those right-handed amino acids. That's the point. That's where the right-handedness comes from. The other links give possible explanations for how amino acids could naturally accumulate with preference for right-handedness that would negate the 50/50 split in abundance over time that you said would be a requirement. The point is that there are many possible natural explanations for why there might not be a 50/50 split in handedness over time, and why life as we know it uses only right-handedness.

right-handedness is for the birds...

take left-handed people, who are simply awesome at anything they put their minds to...

So I guess you must be implying that god is left handed, because other than that your point is completely meaningless and you are in the wrong thread. Beat it.

Hey, go **** yourself, K. Go look at some ****ing stars or something. Just because you are unable to understand basic chemistry and biochemistry doesn't mean my point is meaningless. The fact is, DNA should be close to a 50/50 split, but in fact, is ALL right handed. It's not because of right handed amino acids either. Basic chemistry is defying your science in this instance, and you don't like or understand it, so you simply say "beat it." Strong stuff.

I want to go back to the question I asked when finalizing my opening remarks. What evidence would it take for you to change your mind? Are you open to the possibility of "coming back to the dark side" at some point in your life? For instance, for famed British atheist Antony Flew, it was the the incredible complexity of DNA that opened his eyes. Flew stated before he died, “It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design.” Flew also renounced naturalistic theories of evolution: “It has become inordinately difficult even to begin to think about constructing a naturalistic theory of the evolution of that first reproducing organism.”

In Flew’s own words, he simply “had to go where the evidence leads. It seems to me that the case for an Aristotelian God who has the characteristics of power and also intelligence, is now much stronger than it ever was before."

Simple question -- are all DNA researchers ardent believers in God? Pointing at one person at having converted (either to or away from religion) doesn't really accomplish much.

__________________
"I love signature blocks on the Internet. I get to put whatever the hell I want in quotes, pick a pretend author, and bang, it's like he really said it." George Washington

It defies statistical equivalency where the coin is tossed many times with no attachment to the history of previous coin tosses. What we are dealing with here is a persistence of what was initially the condition that randomly had a higher population of right handedness and it needn't to be by much in that initial condition.

Hey, go **** yourself, K. Go look at some ****ing stars or something. Just because you are unable to understand basic chemistry and biochemistry doesn't mean my point is meaningless. The fact is, DNA should be close to a 50/50 split, but in fact, is ALL right handed. It's not because of right handed amino acids either. Basic chemistry is defying your science in this instance, and you don't like or understand it, so you simply say "beat it." Strong stuff.

So being a chemical engineer you're right wtf do I know about chemistry? This is not your thread go away or try to choke me out.

__________________
Donald Trump: “ Black guys counting my money! I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys wearing yarmulkes… Those are the only kind of people I want counting my money. Nobody else…Besides that, I tell you something else. I think that’s guy’s lazy. And it’s probably not his fault because laziness is a trait in blacks.”

So being a chemical engineer you're right wtf do I know about chemistry? This is not your thread go away or try to choke me out.

I'll make any thread I choose to be mine, bitch. And, if you are a chemical engineer, then that speaks volumes to how much science has clouded your point of view, since anyone with a half way decent understanding of chemistry would agree with my points about DNA

My family read the Book of Mormon once a year. My dad's side of the family were very staunch Latter Day Saints and this ultimately led to my disdain in religion. With that said, I believe that I have taken a lot of truth from the Book of Mormon as well as the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price. Do I believe Mormons are Christians? More so than the majority of Protestants in my opinion. Their acceptance of the atonement is evident in their actions.

I'm cool with the evolution/abiogenesis thing. I can't imagine it coming up again, but if it does, there's nothing wrong with the summary that you posted on the issue.

As for the historicity of Christ, I have read countless literature on the subject. While it could be said that it's simply a confirmation bias, New Testament Scholar N.T. Wright has written some awesome stuff on the existence of Christ that is generally accepted by both religious and secular scholars. "The Historical Jesus and Christian Theology" is a Wright book that I often recommend to both skeptics and believers. On the other side of the spectrum, I recently purchased a Bart Ehrman book that I have not finished reading yet. He concedes that Jesus existed, but was simply a carpenter who talked a lot. Ironically enough, Bart Ehrman wrote the New Testament textbook that we used for my college class.

OK good I just wanted to check and make sure if evolution came up later it was separated from abiogenesis.

OK this is the biggest Chinese Menu of Christianity I've ever seen. So basically you have taken bits and pieces of several christian doctrines you have been indoctrinated into and merged them together in to a fairly odd mixture of beliefs even by Christian standards. So did you just pick the parts that felt good to you or how did you decide which of the doctrines, which beliefs you thought were fine and which could go by the wayside? Does it bother you at al that you are in defiance of so many of the laws? Or can you just wish them away at will? I am pretty curious how you wrap your brain around the different laws and pick and choose which ones you will obey. Is there a internal pecking order you set up to prioritize them?

Also you didn't respond to any of my inquires on the subject of eyewitnesses. Anything to add on those or are you kinda blowing off the witness idea and moving onto books you have read?

The movie My Cousin Vinny has a line I alway think of when it comes to the historicity of jesus.

Vinny: Let me show you something. (he holds up a playing card, the ace of spades) religion's going to show you the bricks. Religion'll show you they got straight sides. Religion'll show you how they got the right shape. Religion'll show them to you in a very special way, so that they appear to have everything a brick should have. But there's one thing he's not gonna show you. (turns the card, so that its edge shows. The card is now a joker.) When you look at religion's case for historicity from the right angle, it's as thin as this playing card. Religions whole case is an illusion, a magic trick.

I substituted some words into the quote but I hope you get my meaning. There is no contemporary non-biblical account of jesus that exists. None. Everything that could be considered a contemporary account of jesus comes from biblical sources. How thin is that playing card?

I have read the Ehrman book and many others. I personally find the book "Jesus 100 years before Christ" to present the best reasoning for the existence of a historical jesus. If you would like a copy I'll send you one for free. After you answer the other questions I'd really like to delve into Paul and his ministry if you don't mind.

__________________
Donald Trump: “ Black guys counting my money! I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys wearing yarmulkes… Those are the only kind of people I want counting my money. Nobody else…Besides that, I tell you something else. I think that’s guy’s lazy. And it’s probably not his fault because laziness is a trait in blacks.”

I'll make any thread I choose to be mine, bitch. And, if you are a chemical engineer, then that speaks volumes to how much science has clouded your point of view, since anyone with a half way decent understanding of chemistry would agree with my points about DNA

You don't have a point but thanks for playing

__________________
Donald Trump: “ Black guys counting my money! I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys wearing yarmulkes… Those are the only kind of people I want counting my money. Nobody else…Besides that, I tell you something else. I think that’s guy’s lazy. And it’s probably not his fault because laziness is a trait in blacks.”

__________________
Donald Trump: “ Black guys counting my money! I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys wearing yarmulkes… Those are the only kind of people I want counting my money. Nobody else…Besides that, I tell you something else. I think that’s guy’s lazy. And it’s probably not his fault because laziness is a trait in blacks.”

Says guy that has no point ever. Ok. I'll leave. Trying to make a point with someone that isn't able to comprehend basic science is fruitless. I'm trying to explain that if the chimpanzee will push the red button, he will get a morsel of food. The poor little bastard just thinks the red light is intriquing